SECTION 84 IPC - INSANITY AND HOW IT IS TO BE PROVED

SECTION 84 IPC – INSANITY AND HOW IT IS TO BE PROVED

APPEAL

2. Raising the plea of insanity on the mandate of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘the IPC’), the appellant seeks reversal of the order of conviction passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, confirming the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, S.G. Margao-II. As we are dealing with the seminal issue of applicability of Section 84 of the IPC and in the light of the focus made by the counsel for the appellant, we do not propose to go into the merits.

xxx

SECTION 84 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

“84. Act of a person of unsound mind. – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”

4. Section 84 of the IPC recognizes only an act which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words “nothing is an offence”. The said words are a clear indication of the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission.

5. The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is a very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law.

6. The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the consequence of it.

7. We wish to place reliance on the following decisions: –

Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495
Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109
Bapu @ Gajraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2007 8 SCC 66

SECTION 105 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

“105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. —When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”

8. The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged.

9. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case under Section 84 of the IPC, one has to apply the concept of preponderance of probabilities. The aforesaid provision has to be read along with Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The better way to reconcile the aforesaid provision would be to have a look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence.

10. As Section 84 of the IPC has its laudable objective behind it, the prosecution and the Court have their distinct roles to play. The agency has to take up the investigation from the materials produced on behalf of the person claiming unsoundness. It has to satisfy itself that the case would not come within the purview of Section 84 of the IPC.

11. The Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether the act was done by a person with an unsound mind within the rigour of Section 84 of the IPC.

12. We wish to place reliance on the classical decision of this Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563),

…

CHAPTER XXV OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

15. Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’), though procedural in nature, also becomes substantive when it deals with an accused person of unsound mind. A well-laid procedure is contemplated under Sections 328 to 339 of Cr.P.C. There is not even a need for an application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. in finding out as to whether an accused would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the Court. Under Section 330, the Court can even go to the extent of discharging such a person if his inability to stand trial continues with a rigid chance of improvement. As per Section 334 of Cr.P.C., the judgment of the Court shall include a specific finding that the act was committed due to unsoundness of mind, though it was actually done. The reason is simple as there cannot be an acquittal on the ground of unsoundness of mind unless the act is actually done.

16. The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability. The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice.

17. Having noted the scope and ambit of Chapter XXV of Cr.P.C., including the provisions incorporated by way of amendments in the year 2009, one has to take into account the fact that the Court has a larger role to play while considering the case under Section 84 of the IPC. If a friendly approach is required to be followed during the trial, when adequate powers have been conferred upon the Court to even discharge an accused on the ground of an unsound mind, the same reasoning will have to be applied with much force when it comes to Section 84 of the IPC.

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

18. We find adequate materials on the assessment and evaluation of legal and medical insanity, which are totally different from each other. We shall furnish the following relevant material on medical jurisprudence:
Jaisingh P. Modi, A Textbook on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 26th Edn. 2018, pg. 938.

SCHIZOPHRENIA

19. Now, we shall come to the mental illness caused by Schizophrenia. We do not wish to go into the said issue as it being one within the exclusive knowledge of the experts, except to quote the relevant text available:
Jaisingh P. Modi, a textbook on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 26th Edn. 2018, pg. 922.
Elizabeth A. Martin (2007), “Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary (7th edition)”, pg. 642.
American Psychiatric Association 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders : DSM-5, 5th Edn, American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC. pg. 87.
20. We thus, appreciate that Schizophrenia is certainly an over-powering mental illness.

APPLICATION ON FACTS

24. The Court of Sessions and the High Court rendered the conviction on merits. The plea of insanity was also taken. It was accordingly rejected on the ground that PW6, the brother of the grandfather of the appellant, did not find any abnormality and that his mother has not been examined. Further, PW10 being the doctor who physically examined the accused after the incident, stated that the accused was mentally well.

25. However, the evidence of the Government doctor who deposed as AW1 and DW1 was brushed aside, so also the evidence of DW2, who was the uncle of the accused, and clearly spoke about the earlier treatment received by the accused. The evidence of AW2 was not even taken note of. The conduct, though subsequent, of the appellant, was ignored.

26. Before this Court, a report was called for from the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani as the medicine prescription and other documents could not be deciphered, and there was no discussion on the prior treatment given. We are of the view, that the aforesaid exercise would not have been warranted, had the evidence of AW2, which could be deciphered from the records furnished before us, been brought to the notice of the Court. In the report, it was stated that it could not be confirmed that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia. We may note that the statements of the doctors were recorded after 16 years of the occurrence. In fact, they had also found it difficult to remember the nature of the treatment given to the appellant. In any case, that is a material which actually will go in favour of the appellant as the factum of treatment is not in dispute, particularly when it is corroborated by the evidence of AW2 on more than one occasion.

27. We may also add that this report merely records the statements of the doctors who have not been examined before the Court. Suffice it to say, that the evidence of the Government doctor as DW1 who withstood crossexamination ought to have been accepted. The mere fact that the appellant subsequently became fit to face the trial is sufficient enough to render an order of acquittal as it is indicative of his prior insanity. We do feel that both the Trial Court and the High Court were influenced by the nature of the act while ignoring the condition of the appellant and the fact that the burden on the accused is one of preponderance of probability. We have also been informed that the appellant has recovered fully and mixed well with the society.

28. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to give our imprimatur to the conviction rendered against the appellant as he is certainly entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 84 of the IPC.

Appeal allowed.